See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316548196

Large-Scale Direct Shear Testing of Geogrid-Reinforced Aggregate Base over

Weak Subgrade

Article  in  International Journal of Pavement Engineering · April 2019

DOI: 10.1080/10298436.2017.1321419

CITATIONS READS

15 1,283

5 authors, including:

Venkata Abhishek Sakleshpur Rodrigo Salgado

Purdue University Purdue University
23 PUBLICATIONS   42 CITATIONS    225 PUBLICATIONS   6,282 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nayyar Siddiki

17 PUBLICATIONS   252 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Experimental Study of the Load Response of Large Diameter Closed-ended and Open-ended Pipe Piles Installed in Alluvial Soil View project

Experimental Determination of Displacement and Strain Fields around Piles using Digital Image Correlation (DIC) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Venkata Abhishek Sakleshpur on 09 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Pavement Engineering

ISSN: 1029-8436 (Print) 1477-268X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpav20

Large-scale direct shear testing of geogrid-

reinforced aggregate base over weak subgrade

Venkata Abhishek Sakleshpur, Monica Prezzi, Rodrigo Salgado, Nayyar Zia

Siddiki & Yoon Seok Choi

To cite this article: Venkata Abhishek Sakleshpur, Monica Prezzi, Rodrigo Salgado, Nayyar Zia
Siddiki & Yoon Seok Choi (2019) Large-scale direct shear testing of geogrid-reinforced aggregate
base over weak subgrade, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 20:6, 649-658, DOI:
10.1080/10298436.2017.1321419

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2017.1321419

Published online: 27 Apr 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 197

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gpav20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING
2019, VOL. 20, NO. 6, 649–658
https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2017.1321419

Large-scale direct shear testing of geogrid-reinforced aggregate base over weak

subgrade
Venkata Abhishek Sakleshpura, Monica Prezzia, Rodrigo Salgadoa, Nayyar Zia Siddikib and Yoon Seok Choic
a
Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA; bGeotechnical Laboratory Services, Indiana Department of Transportation,
Indianapolis, IN, USA; cFugro Consultants, Houston, TX, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Geogrids have been widely used to construct stable subgrade foundations and to provide a working Received 16 September 2016
platform for construction over weak and soft soils. Use of geogrid reinforcement in a pavement system Accepted 17 April 2017
ensures a long‐lasting pavement structure by reducing excessive deformation and cracking. In this study,
KEYWORDS
a series of large-scale direct shear tests were performed to evaluate the mechanical interaction between Large direct shear test;
a subgrade soil and an aggregate base layer with and without a geogrid at the interface. The subgrade subgrade; aggregate base;
and base materials consisted of glacial till and well-graded gravel, respectively. Seven types of biaxial geogrid; interface shear
geogrids were tested. Normal stresses of 50, 100 and 200  kPa were applied to the top of the samples strength coefficient; aperture
compacted at optimum moisture content (OMCsoil = 16.4% and OMCaggregate = 8.2%) to relative compaction size; junction strength
values of 93–98% (RCsoil = 94–98% and RCaggregate = 93–96%). The test results show that aperture area and
junction strength of geogrids are important factors that affect the soil–aggregate interface shear strength
response. The average values of the peak interface shear strength coefficient, defined as the ratio of the
peak interface shear strength of the soil–aggregate systems with and without geogrid at the interface,
range from 0.96 to 1.48. Based on the results of this study, the geogrid aperture area, the normalised
aperture area, the normalised aperture length, and the junction strength to optimise the peak interface
shear strength of soil–aggregate–geogrid systems are 825 mm2, 4.7, 5.4, and 11.5 kN/m, respectively. These
values are restricted to the materials and test conditions used in this study.

1. Introduction size to aggregate grain size is an important factor that affects

The interaction between soils and geosynthetics is of the utmost
importance in many geotechnical engineering applications,
particularly in design and stability analysis of geosynthetic-
reinforced soil structures. In view of rapid urbanisation, an
increasing demand for soil stabilisation methods is inevitable
in order to construct stable  transportation infrastructure over
subgrade deposits with low shear strength and high compressibility.
Unlike conventional rigid reinforcement, such as steel and timber,
flexible geosynthetics, such as geotextiles and geogrids, present
a promising approach to improve the performance of coarse-
grained material placed over soft and weak subgrade (Bergado
et al. 1993, Haeri et al. 2000). The subgrade is typically reinforced
by placing a geogrid at the subgrade–subbase or subgrade–base
interface to improve the ability of weak subgrade to withstand
traffic loads without undergoing excessive deformation.
Geogrids provide reinforcement by laterally restraining the
base or subbase and improve the bearing capacity of the system,
thus decreasing the shear stresses on weak subgrade. In addition,
the confinement provided by geogrids improves the distribution
of vertical stress over the subgrade and thus reduces vertical
subgrade deformation. The proper ratio of geogrid aperture
the performance of geogrid reinforcement systems (Haas et al.
1988, Tang et al. 2008). Further, an important parameter used to
evaluate the efficiency of geogrid-reinforced subgrade systems
is the interface shear strength coefficient α, defined as the ratio
of the shear strength of the subgrade soil system with geogrid
reinforcement to the shear strength of the subgrade soil sys-
tem without geogrid reinforcement, both measured under the
same normal stress (Cancelli et al. 1992, Cazzuffi et al. 1993, Liu
et al. 2009a).
Although geotextiles and geogrids have been used effectively
to reduce excessive vertical deformation and lateral flow of soft
subgrade (Murthy et al. 1993, Stark et al. 1996, Dash et al. 2001,
Al-Qadi et al. 2011, Ezzein and Bathurst 2012, Arulrajah et al.
2014), however, very few studies have examined the influences
of geogrid aperture area and junction strength on the behaviour
of geogrid-reinforced aggregate base–subgrade systems (Brown
et al. 2007, Indraratna et al. 2012). Thus, in order to better
understand the behaviour of these systems, a series of large-scale
direct shear tests are performed in this study to investigate the
mechanical interaction between geogrid, soil and aggregate, and
the effects of geogrid aperture size and junction strength, among
other factors, on the interface shear strength response.

CONTACT  Venkata Abhishek Sakleshpur  vsaklesh@purdue.edu

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
650    V. A. SAKLESHPUR ET AL.

2.  Literature review strain, location of geogrid in the shear box, and water content
of subgrade, on the interface shear behaviour of soil–aggregate–
Based on laboratory and full-scale field tests, several researchers
geogrid system.
have reported significant improvement of the bearing capacity
of pavements when geogrid reinforcement was used between
base course and weak subgrade (Barksdale et al. 1989, Al-Qadi 3.  Materials and test programme
et al. 1994, Perkins and Ismeik 1997). Barksdale et al. (1989)
The subgrade soil used in this study was glacial till, which is
assessed the performance of geogrids and geotextiles used in
classified as CL according to the Unified Soil Classification
flexible pavements through large-scale tests performed in a test
System (USCS, ASTM D2487-11 2011) and as A-4 according to
facility 4.9 m × 2.4 m in plan, using a 6.7 kN wheel load mov-
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
ing at a speed of 4.8 km/h. Up to 70,000 repetitions of wheel
Officials (AASHTO M 145-91 1993). It consists of 32% sand,
loading were applied to the test sections. A 52% reduction in
48% silt and 20% clay-sized particles by weight with liquid limit
permanent subgrade deformation was reported when a geogrid
of 30.5%, plastic limit of 21.3% and plasticity index of 9.2%.
was placed at the bottom of the base course. For weak subgrades
The optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry unit
(with California Bearing Ratio CBR < 3%), total rutting in the
weight of glacial till are 16.4% and 17.5 kN/m3, respectively.
base and subgrade could be reduced by 20–40% as a result of
The base course material was No. 53 aggregate (crushed
using geogrid reinforcement.
stone), which is classified as well-graded gravel (GW) accord-
Al-Qadi et al. (1994) evaluated the performance of pave-
ing to USCS (ASTM D2487-11) and as stone fragments or
ments with and without geotextile and geogrid reinforcement.
gravel (A-1-a) according to AASHTO (AASHTO M 145-91).
The tests were performed on 18 pavement sections, including
Figure 1 shows the particle size distribution curve of No. 53
geotextile-stabilized and geogrid-reinforced sections. A dynamic
aggregate, which lies between the upper and lower limits of the
load equal to approximately 550  kPa was applied through a
particle size distribution specified by the Indiana Department
300-mm-thick rigid plate at a frequency of 0.5 Hz. The loading
of Transportation. No. 53 aggregate contains 56% gravel, 42%
simulated the dual load from an 80 kN axle with a tire pressure
sand and 2% fines by weight. The D10, D30, D50 and D60 of
of 550  kPa. The experimental results showed that the geotex-
No. 53 aggregate are 0.33, 2.36, 6.1 and 8.5 mm, respectively.
tile-stabilized sections sustained 1.7 to over 3 times the number
Therefore, the coefficient of uniformity and coefficient of cur-
of load repetitions than the control sections for 25 mm of perma-
vature are 25.8 and 2.0, respectively. The OMC and maximum
nent deformation. In the geogrid-reinforced sections, the granite
dry unit weight of No. 53 aggregate are 8.2% and 21.6 kN/m3,
aggregate material had penetrated into silty sand subgrade while
respectively. Seven biaxial geogrids, labelled G1 to G7, with
silty sand had migrated into the granite aggregate layer. The geo-
different aperture sizes and junction strengths were used in this
textile was effective in preventing fines migration between the
study. Table 1 lists the physical and mechanical properties of
base course and the subgrade. Haas et al. (1988) and Perkins et al.
the geogrids in the machine direction. Geogrids G1–G6 were
(1998) showed that geogrid reinforcement increases the modulus
produced using polypropylene while geogrid G7 was woven
of the base course and improves the vertical stress distribution
from multifilament polyester yarns and coated with polyvinyl
over the subgrade. Hufenus et al. (2006) performed full-scale
chloride. All geogrids had square apertures, except for geogrids
field tests on geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads on soft subgrade.
G1 and G2 that had rectangular apertures with dimensions of
The geogrid reinforcement increased the bearing capacity of the
25 and 33 mm in the machine and cross-machine directions,
pavement and reduced rut formation.
respectively.
In recent years, several large-scale direct shear tests have been
The large-scale direct shear apparatus consisted of an upper,
performed by researchers to study the interface shear behaviour
square box of size 30.5 cm × 30.5 cm × 10 cm, and a lower, rec-
of geogrid-reinforced soils and aggregates (Abu-Farsakh et al.
tangular box of size 30.5 cm × 45 cm × 10 cm. The size of the
2007, Tang et al. 2008, Liu et al. 2009a, 2009b, Indraratna et al.
lower box was kept larger than that of the upper box in order
2012, Zou et al. 2012, Hossain et al. 2013, Naeini et al. 2013,
Biabani and Indraratna 2015, Ferreira et al. 2015, Umashankar
et al. 2015, Biabani et al. 2016), as well as other geogrid-rein-
forced materials, such as tire chip-sand mixtures (Tanchaisawat
et al. 2010), expanded polystyrene geofoam (Padade and Mandal
2014), recycled foamed glass (Arulrajah et al. 2015) and con-
struction and demolition waste (Arulrajah et al. 2014, Vieira
and Pereira 2016). These studies have investigated the interface
shear behaviour of geogrids in which the same soil or aggregate
material was used in both the upper as well as lower halves
of large direct shear boxes. However, limited studies on large-
scale direct shear testing of two-layered soils reinforced with a
geogrid at the interface have been reported (Tang et al. 2008,
Abdi et al. 2009, Kamalzare and Ziaie-Moayed 2011). Hence,
a series of large-scale direct shear tests were performed on a
two-layered system (glacial till and No. 53 aggregate) with and
without a geogrid at the interface to investigate the effects of
geogrid aperture size, junction strength, tensile strength at 2% Figure 1. Particle size distribution curve of No. 53 aggregate.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING   651

Table 1.  Physical and mechanical properties of biaxial geogrids in machine

direction.

Geogrids
Property G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7
Aperture size 25 25 33 15 15 35 25
(mm)
Aperture area 825 825 1089 225 225 1225 625
(mm2)
Tensile strength 4.1 6.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 15.0 7.7
at 2% strain
(kN/m)
Ultimate tensile 12.4 19.2 12.8 13.0 25.0 40.0 34.9
strength (kN/m)
Junction strength 11.53 17.86 11.90 0.44 0.47 1.00 0.87
(kN/m)

to maintain a constant shearing area during the tests. The test

materials were prepared at their optimum moisture contents.
Glacial till was compacted in the lower shear box in three layers
to relative compaction (RC) values of 94–98% (Figure 2(a)). The
number of blows applied to glacial till were 280 for the first layer,
330 for the second layer and 383 for the third layer based on the
standard Proctor compaction effort. A single layer of geogrid was
placed at the interface of the lower and upper shear boxes (Figure
2(b)). No. 53 aggregate was compacted in the upper shear box in
three layers to RC values of 93–96% (Figure 2(c)). The number
of blows applied to the aggregate were 230 for the first layer, 250
for the second layer and 370 for the third layer based on the
standard Proctor compaction effort. The direct shear tests were
performed at normal stresses of 50, 100 and 200 kPa, at a constant
shear rate of 1 mm/min. The data acquisition system and the
associated sensors, such as load cell and LVDT, were calibrated
prior to the start of the test. Fresh samples of soil and aggregate
were compacted for each direct shear test. The maximum shear
stress obtained during shearing was recorded as the peak shear
strength, whereas the shear stress obtained at the end of the test
was recorded as the end-of-test shear strength.

4.  Results and discussion

4.1.  Shear stress–horizontal displacement curves and
peak and end-of-test shear strength envelopes
Figure 3(a)–(c) shows the interface shear stress versus horizontal
displacement curves for soil–aggregate samples reinforced with
geogrids G2, G5 and G7, respectively. It is observed that the
interface shear stresses of soil–aggregate samples with geogrids
G2 and G7 increase with the horizontal displacement up to a
peak and exhibit oscillations thereafter. These oscillations have Figure 2.  Direct shear box set-up: (a) glacial till placed in lower shear box and
also been observed by Indraratna et al. (2012) and Biabani and compacted in three layers, (b) biaxial geogrid placed over compacted glacial till
Indraratna (2015) during large-scale direct shear testing of geog- and secured to shear box, and (c) No. 53 aggregate placed in upper shear box and
compacted in three layers.
rid-reinforced rail ballast and subballast. The oscillations are due
to the rearrangement of aggregate particles and changes in the
degree of interlocking of aggregate particles within the geog- Figure 4 shows the peak and end-of-test Mohr-Coulomb shear
rid apertures during shearing. On the other hand, the interface strength envelopes obtained by fitting straight lines through the
shear stress–horizontal displacement curves of the soil–aggregate peak and end-of-test shear stresses recorded in Figure 3(a)–(c).
sample with geogrid G5 do not exhibit a distinct peak even for The solid and dashed lines in Figure 4 represent the peak and
a relatively low normal stress of 50 kPa. For all normal stresses end-of-test shear strength envelopes, respectively. The values
considered in this study, soil–aggregate samples with geogrid G2 of the correlation coefficient R2 corresponding to the peak and
at the interface exhibit higher peak and end-of-test shear stresses end-of-test shear strength envelopes are, respectively, 0.947 and
than soil–aggregate samples with geogrids G5 and G7. 0.950 for no geogrid, 0.998 and 0.981 for geogrid G2, 0.999 and
652    V. A. SAKLESHPUR ET AL.

Figure 3. Shear stress vs. horizontal displacement curves: (a) soil–aggregate–G2 interface, (b) soil–aggregate–G5 interface, and (c) soil–aggregate–G7 interface.

Figure 4. Peak and end-of-test shear strength envelopes for soil–aggregate samples with and without geogrids G2, G5 and G7 at the interface.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING   653

0.998 for geogrid G5, and 0.900 and 0.975 for geogrid G7. The Table 2. Peak and end-of-test c–ϕ fitting parameters and secant friction angles for
σn = 100 kPa for soil–aggregate samples tested with and without geogrid.
peak and end-of-test shear strength envelopes of soil–aggregate
samples with geogrids G2 and G7 are higher than those of the Peak End-of-test
unreinforced soil–aggregate sample due to the contribution Secant Secant
from particle–grid interlocking. On the other hand, for a nor- friction friction
Fitting angle for Fitting angle for
mal stress of 50 kPa, the peak and end-of-test shear stresses of parameters σn = 100 kPa parameters σn = 100 kPa
the soil–aggregate sample with geogrid G5 are lower than those
c c
of the unreinforced sample. However, for normal stresses of 100 Geogrid (kPa) ϕ (°) ϕsecant (°) (kPa) ϕ (°) ϕsecant (°)
and 200 kPa, the soil–aggregate sample with geogrid G5 exhibits No Geogrid 57.0 20.1 40.7 56.1 19.2 40.0
higher peak and end-of-test shear stresses than the unreinforced G1 111.6 8.8 52.3 78.5 10.0 44.9
sample. This is attributed to the ineffective interlocking of aggre- G2 92.2 24.7 53.8 61.1 26.2 46.2
G3 95.0 15.1 48.8 72.0 16.1 46.0
gate particles within the apertures of geogrid G5 at a low normal G4 57.6 17.7 43.5 46.7 20.7 41.6
stress of 50 kPa, but this is not the case for normal stresses of 100 G5 26.3 35.1 44.2 23.7 34.5 43.6
and 200 kPa where the aggregate particles are subjected to greater G6 53.4 23.2 48.9 63.0 22.1 48.1
G7 79.7 15.5 49.2 48.2 21.7 39.5
confinement. As will be discussed later, there is an optimum ratio
of geogrid aperture size to aggregate particle size that maximises
the shear strength of the soil–aggregate–geogrid systems.
Table 2 lists the measured peak and end-of-test Mohr– Table 3. Peak interface shear strength coefficients for normal stresses of 50, 100
Coulomb c–ϕ fitting parameters and the secant friction angles and 200 kPa.
for a normal stress σn of 100 kPa for unreinforced and geogrid Peak interface shear strength coefficient αpeak
reinforced soil–aggregate samples. The peak c and ϕ values of Geogrid σn = 50 kPa σn = 100 kPa σn = 200 kPa Average αpeak
the unreinforced soil–aggregate sample are 57.0 kPa and 20.1°, G1 1.47 1.50 1.07 1.35
respectively, whereas the end-of-test c and ϕ values are 56.1 kPa G2 1.45 1.59 1.40 1.48
and 19.2°, respectively. The peak and end-of-test secant friction G3 1.41 1.33 1.14 1.30
G4 0.87 1.10 0.90 0.96
angles for the unreinforced soil–aggregate sample are 40.7° and G5 0.76 1.13 1.26 1.05
40.0°, respectively, for a normal stress of 100  kPa. The maxi- G6 1.05 1.33 1.08 1.16
mum increase in the peak and end-of-test secant friction angles G7 1.10 1.35 1.00 1.15
for the geogrid-reinforced soil–aggregate samples are 13.1° (for
geogrid G2) and 8.1° (for geogrid G6), respectively, over those
Table 4. End-of-test interface shear strength coefficients for normal stresses of 50,
of the unreinforced sample. Further, it is observed that the peak 100 and 200 kPa.
secant friction angles of all the geogrid-reinforced soil–aggregate
samples are higher than the end-of-test secant friction angles for End-of-test interface shear strength
coefficient αend-of-test
a normal stress of 100 kPa.
Geogrid σn = 50 kPa σn = 100 kPa σn = 200 kPa Average αend-of-test
G1 1.06 1.18 0.88 1.04
4.2.  Interface shear strength coefficient G2 1.12 1.24 1.26 1.21
G3 1.06 1.23 1.01 1.10
The improvement in the behaviour of soil–geogrid interfaces can G4 0.80 1.06 0.93 0.93
G5 0.70 1.13 1.25 1.03
be expressed in terms of the interface shear strength coefficient G6 0.97 1.33 1.10 1.13
α, defined as G7 0.89 0.98 1.01 0.96

𝛼 = 𝜏(geogrid) ∕𝜏(unreinforced) (1)

where τ(geogrid) is the shear strength of subgrade–aggregate base
system with geogrid at the interface, and τ(unreinforced) is the shear
strength of subgrade–aggregate base system without geogrid at
the interface.
Tables 3 and 4 summarise the measured peak and end-of-
test interface shear strength coefficients, respectively, for normal
stresses of 50, 100 and 200  kPa, together with the average
interface shear strength coefficients. The average peak and end-
of-test interface shear strength coefficients of the soil–aggregate
samples reinforced with the seven types of geogrids used in this
study range from 0.96 to 1.48 and 0.93 to 1.21, respectively. The
average peak and end-of-test interface shear strength coefficients
are lowest for soil–aggregate–G4 interface and highest for
soil–aggregate–G2 interface. Further, the peak and end-of-test
interface shear strength coefficients for all soil–aggregate–geogrid
interfaces are greater than unity, except for geogrids G4 and G7.
The main contribution to the shear strength of soil–aggregate–
geogrid system is particle–grid interlocking, which depends on
the size of the geogrid apertures relative to the size of the aggregate
particles. An interface shear strength coefficient exceeding unity
represents the beneficial effect of geogrids in reinforced soil–
aggregate systems. On the other hand, an interface shear strength
coefficient of less than unity, as observed for soil–aggregate–G4
and G7 interfaces, is attributed to the lack of adequate aggregate
particle–geogrid interlocking mainly owing to the inappropriate
size of the aggregate particle relative to the aperture size of the
geogrid. Tables 3 and 4 also show that the interface shear strength
coefficient depends on the applied normal stress. At lower normal
stresses, the materials are more dilative, while at higher normal
stresses and larger shear strains, dilation is inhibited. Therefore,
depending on the initial sample density, the normal stress and
the degree of interlocking of aggregate particles within geogrid
apertures, the soil–aggregate–geogrid interaction mechanism is
expected to be different.
In general, the ranges of the interface shear strength
coefficients for various soil/aggregate–geogrid interfaces
654  V. A. SAKLESHPUR ET AL.
obtained from large-scale direct shear tests performed under a
variety of test conditions reported in the literature are: 0.83–0.90
and 0.95–1.04 for gravel–geogrid and sand–geogrid interfaces
(Cazzuffi et al. 1993), 1.34–1.44 for clay–sand–geogrid inter-
face (Abdi et al. 2009), 0.93–1.01 for sand–geogrid interface (Liu
et al. 2009b), 1.00–1.14 for clay–sand–geogrid interface
(Kamalzare and Ziaie-Moayed 2011), 0.90–1.16 for ballast–geog-
rid interface (Indraratna et al. 2012), 0.66–1.60 for construc-
tion and demolition aggregate–geogrid interface (Arulrajah
et al. 2014) and 1.01–1.29 for subballast (sand + gravel)–geogrid
interface (Biabani and Indraratna 2015). The measured interface
shear strength coefficients for the soil–aggregate–geogrid sam-
ples tested in this study are in good agreement with the range of
values reported in the literature.
4.3.  Effects of geogrid aperture area, normalised aperture
area, normalised aperture length and tensile strength at
2% strain
Figures 5–9 show the average peak interface shear strength
coefficient versus the following properties of the seven geogrids
Figure 5.  Average peak interface shear strength coefficient vs. geogrid aperture
area.
Figure 6. Average peak interface shear strength coefficient vs. normalised geogrid
aperture area.
tested: aperture area, normalised aperture area, normalised aper-
ture length, tensile strength at 2% strain and junction strength
(in the machine direction). Among all geogrids tested, geogrid
G2 produced the greatest average peak interface shear strength
coefficient with respect to the aforesaid properties. Figures 5–7
show the average peak interface shear strength coefficient ver-
sus the aperture area A, the normalised aperture area √A/D50
and the normalised aperture length La/D50, respectively, of the
geogrids. The normalised aperture area √A/D50 and the nor-
malised aperture length La/D50 are dimensionless parameters. It
should be noted that √A/D50 and La/D50 are identical for square
geogrid apertures and that the aperture length La in Figure 7
corresponds to the cross-machine direction. It is observed from
Figures 5–7 that the average peak interface shear strength coeffi-
cient increases with A, √A/D50 and La/D50 until it reaches a peak
value of 1.48 at A, √A/D50 and La/D50 values of 825 mm2, 4.7 and
5.4, respectively, but then decreases to 1.16 as A, √A/D50 and
La/D50 approach 1225 mm2, 5.8 and 5.8, respectively. The post-
peak reduction in the values of the average peak interface shear
strength coefficient is attributed to the geogrid aperture size being
significantly greater than the aggregate particle size, resulting in
Figure 7. Average peak interface shear strength coefficient vs. normalised geogrid
aperture length.
Figure 8. Average peak interface shear strength coefficient vs. tensile strength of
geogrid at 2% strain.

Figure 9. Average peak interface shear strength coefficient vs. junction strength
of geogrid.
the aggregate particles not getting properly interlocked within
the geogrid apertures. A similar trend was reported by Sarsby
(1985) for fine sand–geogrid interface and by Indraratna et al.
(2012) for ballast–geogrid interface. Further, it is observed that
the average peak interface shear strength coefficient is less than
unity for values of A, √A/D50 and La/D50 less than 225 mm2, 2.5
and 2.5, respectively, and is greater than unity when A, √A/D50
and La/D50 are greater than the aforesaid values. An average peak
interface shear strength coefficient of less than unity indicates
lack of proper interlocking of aggregate particles within the geog-
rid apertures, whereas a coefficient greater than unity indicates
an improvement in the shear strength of soil–aggregate samples
due to the placement of a geogrid at the interface. Thus, based
on Figures 5–7, the optimum values of A, √A/D50 and La/D50 are
825 mm2, 4.7 and 5.4, respectively. Unlike the variations of the
average peak interface shear strength coefficient with A, √A/D50
and La/D50, no direct correlation is observed between the tensile
strength of the geogrid at 2% strain and the average peak inter-
face shear strength coefficient (Figure 8).
4.4.  Effect of geogrid junction strength
In the case of geomembranes and geotextiles, the interface shear
resistance against soil results solely from the shear resistance
mobilised between the geosynthetic surface and the soil par-
ticles, since the soil particles do not get interlocked within the
apertures. However, the interaction mechanisms under direct
shear mode between soil and geogrids are more complex than
those between soil and sheet geosynthetics (Liu et al. 2009a).
Geogrids are characterised by a combination of longitudinal and
transverse ribs. Longitudinal ribs are parallel to the machine
or roll direction while transverse ribs are perpendicular to the
machine direction. The junctions in a geogrid are the points of
intersection between longitudinal and transverse ribs. Junction
strength is usually defined in terms of the maximum single-junc-
tion strength (i.e. the force required to rip the junction apart) and
obtained following the Geosynthetics Research Institute standard
GG2 procedure (GRI 1998). It is calculated as
n (RCsoil = 95–96% and RCaggregate = 94–95%). For the same water
∑
Jrib = Ji ∕n
i=1 (2)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING   655
where Jrib is the average single-junction strength (in units of
force), Ji is the maximum single-junction strength of each junc-
tion (obtained experimentally) and n is the total number of test
specimens. Alternatively, geogrid junction strength is reported in
terms of force per unit width of the material, which is the force
applied to the junction divided by the nominal aperture opening.
( )( )
Jgrid = Jrib njunctions per unit width (3)
where Jgrid is the geogrid junction strength per unit width (force/
unit width) and njunctions per unit width is the number of junctions per
unit width. Regardless of which definition is used, specifications
of maximum junction strength of geogrids are used for quality
control and to ensure minimum constructability requirements.
A minimum geogrid junction strength for pavement construc-
tion is necessary to maintain the integrity of the geogrid during
shipment and placement. Figure 9 shows that the average peak
interface shear strength coefficient increases with the junction
strength of the geogrid (in the machine direction). The maxi-
mum value of the average peak interface shear strength coeffi-
cient is equal to 1.48 for geogrid G2 with junction strength of
about 18 kN/m.
4.5.  Effects of geogrid placement in shear box and water
content of subgrade
The shear stress–horizontal displacement response of a geog-
rid-reinforced soil–aggregate system depends on various factors,
such as shear strength of soil or aggregate (related to intrinsic
properties of the particles themselves, water content and density),
geogrid properties, and test conditions. There is no established
procedure for the appropriate set-up of a direct shear box, for
testing of soil–geogrid interfaces, with respect to the location of
the geogrid within the shear box. ASTM D5321 (2014, standard
for direct shear testing of soil–geosynthetic interfaces) specifies
only the minimum size of the shear box. As a result, the impact
of geogrid placement, i.e. whether the geogrid is attached either
to the upper half or to the lower half of the shear box, on the
measured interface shear strength was investigated. Glacial till
and No. 53 aggregate were compacted at their optimum mois-
ture contents to RC values of 93–95% (RCsoil  =  94–95% and
RCaggregate = 93–95%). Figure 10 compares the direct shear test
results for these test conditions using geogrid G3. For a normal
stress of 100 kPa, slightly smaller peak interface shear strength
was measured when geogrid G3 was attached to the upper shear
box. The peak interface shear strength values, and secant friction
angles measured for a normal stress of 100  kPa, are 86.1  kPa
and 40.7° (without geogrid), 104.6 kPa and 46.3° (geogrid G3
attached to upper box), and 114.3 kPa and 48.8° (geogrid G3
attached to lower box), respectively.
Figure 11 shows the effect of the water content of the sub-
grade on the peak interface shear strength of soil–aggregate sam-
ples, with and without geogrid G2 at the interface, for a normal
stress of 100 kPa. The subgrade soil samples were prepared at
water contents of 2% and 4% wet of the standard Proctor opti-
mum moisture content and compacted to RC values of 94–96%
content of the subgrade, the peak interface shear strength is
greater for the samples prepared with a geogrid placed between
656  V. A. SAKLESHPUR ET AL.

Figure 10. Comparison of direct shear test results for different locations of geogrid G3 inside the shear box.

Figure 11. Peak interface shear stress vs. water content of subgrade for soil–aggregate samples, with and without geogrid G2 at the interface, for a normal stress of
100 kPa.

the subgrade and the aggregate. This behaviour is observed for

Figure 12. Peak interface shear stresses for soil–soil, soil–aggregate and aggregate–
aggregate interfaces, with and without geogrid G2, for a normal stress of 100 kPa.
all the samples prepared with the different water contents con-
sidered in this study. In addition, for both conditions (with and
without geogrid G2), the peak shear strength at the interface
decreases as the water content of the subgrade increases. A sim-
ilar behaviour was observed by Ferreira et al. (2015) for residual
granite soil–biaxial geogrid interface tested at water contents
of 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 times the OMC. Referring to Figure 11, as
the water content of the subgrade increases from the OMC to
OMC + 2%, the peak interface shear strength decreases by 25%
for the soil–aggregate sample with geogrid G2 and by 20.9% for
the unreinforced soil–aggregate sample. Similarly, as the water
content of the subgrade increases from the OMC to OMC + 4%,
the peak interface shear strength decreases by 41.2% for the soil–
aggregate sample with geogrid G2 and by 53.5% for the unrein-
forced soil–aggregate sample. The peak interface shear strength
coefficient for the subgrade soil sample prepared at the OMC
(αpeak = 1.59) is 20.5% smaller than that for the subgrade sample

prepared at a water content of OMC + 4% (αpeak = 2). Thus, the
improvement in shear strength of an unreinforced soil–aggregate
sample due to the placement of geogrid G2 at the interface is
greater for relatively softer subgrades compacted at water con-
tents above the OMC than for subgrades compacted at the OMC.
Figure 12 compares the peak interface shear strengths for
different materials prepared at the OMC and compacted to RC
values of 93–95% (RCsoil = 94–95% and RCaggregate = 93–95%),
with and without geogrid G2 at the interface, for a normal stress
of 100 kPa. The test conditions include: (a) only No. 53 aggregate,
(b) only glacial till, and (c) glacial till in the lower part of the
shear box and No. 53 aggregate in the upper part of the shear box.
It is observed that the peak interface shear strength for the case of
only No. 53 aggregate is higher than that for the case of only gla-
cial till, with and without geogrid G2 at the interface. However,
the peak interface shear strength coefficient for the sample with
No. 53 aggregate and geogrid G2 is 0.68 which is less than unity.
This means that the placement of geogrid G2 between two layers
of No. 53 aggregate does not improve the peak interface shear
strength. On the other hand, use of geogrid G2 improves the
peak interface shear strength when it is placed either between
two layers of glacial till or between a layer of glacial till and a
layer of No. 53 aggregate. The corresponding peak interface shear
strength coefficients are 2.02 and 1.59 for the sample prepared
with glacial till only and for the sample prepared with glacial till
and No. 53 aggregate, respectively.
5. Conclusions
The responses of various soil–aggregate–geogrid interfaces have
been investigated through a series of large-scale direct shear tests.
Interface shear strength coefficients, defined as the ratio of the
shear strength of a geogrid-reinforced soil–aggregate sample
to the shear strength of an unreinforced soil–aggregate sample
measured under the same normal stress, have been determined
for both peak and end-of-test conditions. The average peak and
end-of-test interface shear strength coefficients for the soil (gla-
cial till), aggregate (No. 53 aggregate) and the seven biaxial geog-
rids tested in this study ranged from 0.96–1.48 and 0.93–1.21,
respectively. These range of coefficients correspond to the soil
and the aggregate being prepared at their optimum moisture con-
tents and compacted to relative compaction values greater than
93%. The average peak and end-of-test interface shear strength
coefficients were lowest for soil–aggregate samples reinforced
with geogrid G4 at the interface and highest for soil–aggregate
samples with geogrid G2 at the interface.
The peak interface shear strength coefficient for the subgrade
soil sample prepared at the OMC was 20.5% smaller than that for
the subgrade sample prepared at a water content of OMC + 4%.
This indicates that the improvement in shear strength of an unre-
inforced soil–aggregate sample due to the placement of geog-
rid G2 at the interface is greater for relatively softer subgrades
compacted at water contents above the OMC than for subgrades
compacted at the OMC. The placement of geogrid G2 between
two layers of No. 53 aggregate resulted in a peak interface shear
strength coefficient of 0.68; however, placement of geogrid G2
between two layers of glacial till or between a layer of glacial till
and a layer of No. 53 aggregate improved the peak interface shear
strength coefficient to 2.02 and 1.59, respectively.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING   657
The aperture area, normalised aperture area, normalised aper-
ture length and junction strength of the seven geogrids tested in
this study have a significant influence on the average peak inter-
face shear strength coefficients. However, no direct correlation
was observed between the tensile strength of the geogrid at 2%
strain and the average peak interface shear strength coefficient.
Based on the results of this study, the geogrid aperture area,
the normalised aperture area, the normalised aperture length,
and the junction strength to optimise the peak interface shear
strength of soil–aggregate–geogrid systems are 825  mm2, 4.7,
5.4, and 11.5 kN/m, respectively. These values are restricted to
the materials and test conditions used in this study. It should
be noted that the large-scale direct shear tests were performed
only once for each of the three normal stresses considered in
the study. Nevertheless, the results obtained from the tests are
in good agreement with those reported for similar materials in
the literature.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Indiana Department of Transportation
through the Joint Transportation Research Program at Purdue
University  [grant number SPR-3225]. The authors are grateful to the
agency for the support. The authors acknowledge the contribution of Min
Sang Lee for assisting with the laboratory tests. Thanks are also due to
Athar Khan for his valuable comments during the course of this study. The
authors thank the reviewers for their constructive feedback and sugges-
tions which helped improve the quality of the manuscript.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the Indiana Department of Transportation
through the Joint Transportation Research Program at Purdue
University [grant number SPR-3225].
References
AASHTO M 145-91, 1993. Classification of soils and soil-aggregate
mixtures for highway construction purposes. Washington, DC: American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 122–126.
Abdi, M.R., Sadrnejad, A., and Arjomand, M.A., 2009. Strength
enhancement of clay by encapsulating geogrids in thin layers of sand.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27 (6), 447–455.
Abu-Farsakh, M., Coronel, J., and Tao, M., 2007. Effect of soil moisture
content and dry density on cohesive soil–geosynthetic interactions
using large direct shear tests. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
19 (7), 540–549.
Al-Qadi, I.L., et al., 1994. Laboratory evaluation of geosynthetic reinforced
pavement sections. Transportation Research Board, No. 1439, 25–31.
Al-Qadi, I.L., et al., 2011. Geogrid mechanism in low volume flexible
pavements: accelerated testing of full-scale heavily instrumented
pavement sections. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 12
(2), 121–135.
Arulrajah, A., et al., 2014. Evaluation of interface shear strength properties
of geogrid-reinforced construction and demolition materials using a
modified large-scale direct shear testing apparatus. Journal of Materials
in Civil Engineering, 26 (5), 974–982.
Arulrajah, A., et al., 2015. Evaluation of interface shear strength properties
of geogrid reinforced foamed recycled glass using a large-scale direct
shear testing apparatus. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering,
1–8. doi:10.1155/2015/235424.
658   V. A. SAKLESHPUR ET AL.
ASTM D2487-11, 2011. Standard practice for classification of soils
for engineering purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM D5321, 2014. Standard test method for determining the shear
strength of soil-geosynthetic and geosynthetic-geosynthetic interfaces by
direct shear. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Barksdale, R.D., Brown, S.F., and Chan, F., 1989. Potential benefits
of geosynthetics in flexible pavement systems. Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board, NCHRP Report 315.
Bergado, D.T., et al., 1993. Interaction between cohesive-frictional soil and
various grid reinforcements. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 12 (4),
327–349.
Biabani, M.M. and Indraratna, B., 2015. An evaluation of the interface
behaviour of rail subballast stabilised with geogrids and geomembranes.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 43 (3), 240–249.
Biabani, M.M., Indraratna, B., and Nimbalkar, S., 2016. Assessment of
interface shear behaviour of sub-ballast with geosynthetics by large-
scale direct shear test. Procedia Engineering, 143, 1007–1015.
Brown, S.F., Kwan, J., and Thom, N.H., 2007. Identifying the key parameters
that influence geogrid reinforcement of railway ballast. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 25 (6), 326–335.
Cancelli, A., Rimoldi, P., and Togni, S., 1992. Frictional characteristics
of geogrids by means of direct shear and pullout tests. In: H. Ochiai,
S. Hayashi and J. Otani, eds. International Symposium on earth
reinforcement practice, 11–13 November. Fukuoka, Japan, 51–56.
Cazzuffi, D., et al., 1993. Laboratory investigations on the shear strength of
geogrid reinforced soils. ASTM Special Technical Publication, No. 1190,
119–137.
Dash, S.K., Rajagopal, K., and Krishnaswamy, N.R., 2001. Strip footing
on geocell reinforced sand beds with additional planar reinforcement.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 19 (8), 529–538.
Ezzein, F. and Bathurst, R.J., 2012. Analysis of geogrid-soil interaction
using a transparent granular soil. 5th European Geosynthetics Congress,
16–19 September. Valencia, Spain, 5, 200–204.
Ferreira, F.B., Vieira, C.S., and Lopes, M.L., 2015. Direct shear behaviour
of residual soil–geosynthetic interfaces – influence of soil moisture
content, soil density and geosynthetic type. Geosynthetics International,
22 (3), 257–272.
GRI, 1998. GRI test methods and standards. Philadelphia, PA: Geosynthetic
Research Institute, Drexel University.
Haas, R., Wall, J., and Carroll, R.G., 1988. Geogrid reinforcement of
granular bases in flexible pavements. Transportation Research Board,
No. 1188, 19–27.
Haeri, S.M., Noorzad, R., and Oskoorouchi, A.M., 2000. Effect of geotextile
reinforcement on the mechanical behavior of sand. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 18 (6), 385–402.
Hossain, B., Sakai, T., and Hossain, Z., 2013. Evaluation of sand–
geosynthetic interface behavior for earth reinforcement. International
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 7 (3), 251–256.
Hufenus, R., et al., 2006. Full-scale field tests on geosynthetic reinforced
unpaved roads on soft subgrade. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 24 (1),
21–37.
View publication stats
Indraratna, B., Hussaini, S.K.K., and Vinod, J.S., 2012. On the shear
behavior of ballast-geosynthetic interfaces. Geotechnical Testing Journal,
35 (2), 305–312.
Kamalzare, M. and Ziaie-Moayed, R., 2011. Influence of geosynthetic
reinforcement on the shear strength characteristics of two-layer sub-
grade. Acta Geotechnica Slovenica, 8 (1), 39–49.
Liu, C.-N., et al., 2009a. Behavior of Geogrid-Sand Interface in Direct
Shear Mode. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
135 (12), 1863–1871.
Liu, C.-N., Ho, Y.-H., and Huang, J.-W., 2009b. Large scale direct shear tests
of soil/PET-yarn geogrid interfaces. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27
(1), 19–30.
Murthy, B.R.S., Sridharan, A., and Bindumadhava, 1993. Evaluation of
interfacial frictional resistance. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 12 (3),
235–253.
Naeini, S.A., Khalaj, M. and Izadi, E., 2013. Interface shear strength of
silty sand–geogrid composite. Proceedings of the ICE: Geotechnical
Engineering, 166 (GE1), 67–75.
Padade, A.H. and Mandal, J.N., 2014. Interface strength behavior
of expanded polystyrene EPS geofoam. International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 8 (1), 66–71.
Perkins, S.W. and Ismeik, M., 1997. A synthesis and evaluation of
geosynthetic-reinforced base layers in flexible pavements – Part II.
Geosynthetics International, 4 (6), 605–621.
Perkins, S.W., Ismeik, M., and Fogelsong, M.L., 1998. Mechanical response
of a geosynthetic-reinforced pavement system to cyclic loading. In: R.S.
Nordal and G. Refsdal, eds. 5th International Conference on Bearing
Capacity of Roads and Airfields, 6–8 July. Trondheim, Norway, 1503–
1512.
Sarsby, R.W., 1985. The influence of aperture size/particle size on the
efficiency of grid reinforcement. 2nd Canadian Symposium on
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 23–24 September. Edmonton, Canada,
7–12.
Stark, T.D., Williamson, T.A., and Eid, H.T., 1996. HDPE Geomembrane/
Geotextile Interface Shear Strength. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
122 (3), 197–203.
Tanchaisawat, T., et al., 2010. Interaction between geogrid reinforcement
and tire chip-sand lightweight backfill. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
28 (1), 119–127.
Tang, X., Chehab, G., and Palomino, A.M., 2008. Evaluation of geogrids for
stabilising weak pavement subgrade. International Journal of Pavement
Engineering, 9 (6), 413–429.
Umashankar, B., Hariprasad, C., and Sasanka Mouli, S., 2015. Interface
properties of metal-grid and geogrid reinforcements with sand. IFCEE
2015, 17–21 March. San Antonio, TX, 1430–1438.
Vieira, C.S. and Pereira, P.M., 2016. Interface shear properties of
geosynthetics and construction and demolition waste from large-scale
direct shear tests. Geosynthetics International, 23 (1), 62–70.
Zou, W., et al., 2012. Influence factors of geogrid–soil interface shear
strength and contribution of transverse ribs of geogrid. 5th Asian
Regional Conference on Geosynthetics, 13–15 December. Bangkok, 785–
792.